Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, California, 37514-37517 [2016-13781]

Download as PDF 37514 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Long Creek and Sloop Channel are transited by commercial fishing and recreational vessel traffic. Under this temporary deviation, the Loop Parkway and the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridges may remain in the closed position between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on June 25, 2016 (rain date: June 26, 2016 between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.). Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: June 6, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016–13692 Filed 6–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG–2016–0484] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, Ocean City, MD Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US 50 (Harry W. Kelly Memorial) Bridge across the Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, mile 0.5, at Ocean City, MD. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the increased vehicular traffic of the 2016 Ocean City Air Show. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position. DATES: The deviation is effective from 3:55 p.m. on Saturday June 18, 2016, to 4:55 p.m. Sunday June 19, 2016. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0484] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. ADDRESSES: If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757–398–6557, email Michael.R.Thorogood@uscg.mil. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Town of Ocean City, on behalf of the Maryland State Highway Administration, who owns the US 50 (Harry W. Kelly Memorial) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.559, to accommodate increased vehicular traffic of the 2016 Ocean City Air Show. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be closed-to-navigation from 3:55 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. on June 18, 2016, and from 3:55 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. on June 19, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 13 feet above mean high water. The Isle of Wight (Sinetuxent) Bay is used by a variety of vessels including small fishing vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: June 7, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016–13777 Filed 6–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG–2015–0330] RIN 1625–AA87 Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, California Coast Guard, DHS. Final rule. AGENCY: ACTION: The Coast Guard is revising the existing conditional security zone regulation currently in place in the navigable waters of Suisun Bay, California, near Concord, California around each of the three piers at the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California (formerly United States Naval Weapons Center Concord, California). This action is intended to clarify responsibilities and authorities for enforcement of the security zone. DATES: This rule is effective from July 11, 2016. ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http:// www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2015– 0330 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399–7443, email D11PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal Concord NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History On August 27, 1996, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers published a final rule in the Federal Register (61 FR 43969) establishing a restricted area 1 around the MOTCO 1 A ‘‘restricted area’’ is defined in § 334.2 as a defined water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access to the area that generally provides security for Government property and/or E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations piers (33 CFR 334.1110). Although the restricted area prohibits public access to the piers at all times, it lacks a conditional boundary extension to be enforced during the presence of munitions laden vessels and/or military onload/offload activities. Prior to January 24, 2005, the Coast Guard would address this lack of a conditional boundary by publishing a temporary security zone of sufficient size in the area for each operation at MOTCO (see e.g., 68 FR 33382). On January 24, 2005, to address this issue on a more permanent basis, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 3299) establishing a conditional 500-yard security zone around MOTCO’s piers to be enforced during military onload/ offload operations (33 CFR 165.1199). The security zone provides necessary security for military operations by providing a standoff distance for blast and collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of response time for security personnel. On July 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a NPRM (80 FR 48787), with proposed changes to clarify responsibilities and authorities for enforcement of the security zone. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this security zone. During the comment period that ended on September 14, 2015, we received 0 comments. III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish security zones. This authority is separate from the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers authority to provide appropriate security in defense of their waterfront facilities and for vessels moored thereto in accordance with the restricted area in 33 CFR 334.1110. The purpose of this rulemaking is to advance the Coast Guard’s efforts to thwart potential terrorist activity through security measures on U.S. ports and waterways. IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule The current regulation at § 165.1199 contains several items that are the subject of the revisions in this FR. The protection to the public from the risks of damage or injury arising from the Government’s use of that area. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 revisions to § 165.1199 will clarify the regulations in a concise, understandable format. First, the Coast Guard revises § 165.1199(c) by clarifying the Coast Guard’s enforcement role during active loading operations, and the ability of the COTP to designate other representatives as having authority to enforce the security zone. The Coast Guard proposes to replace the existing term ‘‘patrol personnel,’’ in favor of a more appropriate term, ‘‘designated representative,’’ which includes federal, state and local officials designated by the COTP. This revision clarifies that the COTP may designate law enforcement officials other than Coast Guard personnel to patrol and enforce the security zone. The Coast Guard also revises the security zone so that it is enforceable at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present at a pier (in addition to during military onload/offload operations). Without this revision, the existing security zone is enforceable during military onload or offload operations only. Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the existing provision regarding ‘‘Local Notice to Mariners’’ as a means of notifying the public that the security zone will be enforced. The security concern related to providing advance notification of the presence of an explosive load at a military base outweighs the benefit of advance notice of the security zone. Instead, the Coast Guard would notify the public of security zone enforcement (and suspensions of enforcement) via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-scene during military onloads or offloads. This revision would better align the notification method of this security zone with the notification method for the existing safety zone in the area (see § 165.1198). No changes in the regulatory text of the rule in the NPRM. V. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders. A. Regulatory Planning and Review E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 37515 harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Security zone enforcement would be limited in duration, and limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule would restrict access to the waters encompassed by the security zone, the effect of this rule would not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-scene during military onloads or offloads. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities. B. Impact on Small Entities The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. The security zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The security zone would be activated, and thus subject to patrol and enforcement, for a limited duration. When the security zone is activated, vessel traffic would be directed to pass safety around the security zone. The maritime public would be advised when transiting near the activated zone. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM 10JNR1 37516 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency’s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. C. Collection of Information This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a security zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Revise § 165.1199 to read as follows: ■ § 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), Concord, California. (a) Location. The security zone(s) reside(s) within the navigable waters of Suisun Bay, California, extending from PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the surface to the sea floor, within 500 yards of the three Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) piers in Concord, California. (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ‘‘designated representative’’ means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to act on the COTP’s behalf. The COTP’s representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a Federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel, or a location on shore. (c) Regulations. (1) The security zone(s) described in paragraph (a) of this section will be in force during active military onloading and/or offloading operations and at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present at a pier. (2) When one or more piers are involved in onload or offload operations at the same time, there will be a 500yard security zone for each involved pier. (3) Under the general regulations in subpart D of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within the security zone(s) described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited during times of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the security zone(s) during times of enforcement must contact the COTP or a designated representative on VHF–16 or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399–3547 to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the security zone(s) must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. (5) Upon being hailed by the COTP or designated representative by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel approaching the security zone(s) must proceed as directed to avoid entering the security zone(s). (d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security zone(s). During periods that one or more security zones are enforced, the COTP or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or notify mariners via actual notice onscene. In addition, COTP maintains a telephone line that is maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The public can contact COTP at (415) 399–3547 to obtain information concerning enforcement of this section. When the E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM 10JNR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 112 / Friday, June 10, 2016 / Rules and Regulations security zones are no longer needed, the COTP or designated representative will cease enforcement of the security zones. Upon suspension of enforcement, all persons and vessels are granted general permissions to enter, move within, and exit the security zones, but should remain cognizant of the applicable restricted area designated in 33 CFR 334.1110. Dated: May 20, 2016. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco. [FR Doc. 2016–13781 Filed 6–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0009; EPA–R05– OAR–2015–0314; FRL–9946–80–Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Illinois; NAAQS Updates Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revised rules submitted by the State of Illinois as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. The submitted rules update Illinois’ ambient air quality standards to include the 2012 primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5), add EPA-promulgated monitoring methods, and address the ‘‘sunset provisions’’ in our regulations. In addition, the revised rules contain the timing requirements for the ‘‘flagging of exceptional events’’ and the submitting of documentation supporting the determination of exceptional events for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 9, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 11, 2016. If adverse comments are received by EPA, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2015–0009 or EPA–R05–OAR– 2015–0314 at http:// www.regulations.gov or via email to Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:32 Jun 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, Doty.Edward@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows: I. When and why did the State make these submittals? II. What are the State rule revisions? A. April 23, 2015, Submittal—Rule Revision Group R14–06 B. December 18, 2014, Submittal—Rule Revision Group R14–17 III. Did the State hold public hearings for these submittals? IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s submittals? V. What action is EPA taking? VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. When and why did the State make these submittals? Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish national primary (protective of human health) and secondary (protective of human welfare) air quality standards for pollutants for which air quality criteria have been issued under Section 108 of the CAA (the criteria pollutants 1). 1 The criteria pollutants are ozone (O ), nitrogen 3 oxides (represented by nitrogen dioxide (NO2)), sulfur oxides (represented by sulfur dioxide (SO2)), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 37517 Individually and collectively these standards are referred to as NAAQS. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires EPA to review, and if necessary, based on accumulated health and welfare data, to revise each NAAQS every five years. If a NAAQS is revised, states whose rules include state air quality standards may revise their rules to address the revised NAAQS and associated monitoring requirements, and submit them to EPA as SIP revision requests. See, e.g., 415 ILCS 5/10(H). On December 18, 2014, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted to EPA for approval as SIP revisions updates to the methods used by Illinois to monitor air quality for several NAAQS. These updates correspond to EPA’s revised monitoring methods promulgated during the period of July 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) adopted these rule revisions on June 5, 2014, as rule revision group R14–17. On April 23, 2015, IEPA submitted to EPA for approval as SIP revisions an additional update to include the 2012 primary annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and a provision incorporating by reference EPA-promulgated monitoring methods. These rule updates correspond to the NAAQS and monitoring methods promulgated by EPA during the period of January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2013, and on July 3, 2013, and August 5, 2013. This state submittal also addressed the ‘‘sunset provisions’’ of 40 CFR 50.4(e), finding that the 1971 NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) no longer applies to the Lemont and Pekin areas in Illinois. Finally, the revised rules contain the timing requirements for the ‘‘flagging of exceptional events’’ and the submitting of documentation supporting the determination of exceptional events for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 standard. The IPCB adopted these rule revisions on September 5, 2013, as rule revision group R14–6. II. What are the State rule revisions? A. April 23, 2015, Submittal—Rule Revision Group R14–06 The rule revisions contained in the April 23, 2015 submittal are summarized below. (represented by total suspended particulates (TSP), particulates (PM10), and fine particulates (PM2.5)), and lead (Pb). Note that Illinois also has air quality standard and monitoring rules for ‘‘coarse particulate matter’’ (PM2.5–10), although this is not a criteria pollutant and is generally considered to be included in PM10. E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM 10JNR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37514-37517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13781]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0330]
RIN 1625-AA87


Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, 
California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising the existing conditional security 
zone regulation currently in place in the navigable waters of Suisun 
Bay, California, near Concord, California around each of the three 
piers at the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California 
(formerly United States Naval Weapons Center Concord, California). This 
action is intended to clarify responsibilities and authorities for 
enforcement of the security zone.

DATES: This rule is effective from July 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being 
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0330 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open 
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco, U.S. 
Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399-7443, email D11-PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal Concord
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 27, 1996, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 
published a final rule in the Federal Register (61 FR 43969) 
establishing a restricted area \1\ around the MOTCO

[[Page 37515]]

piers (33 CFR 334.1110). Although the restricted area prohibits public 
access to the piers at all times, it lacks a conditional boundary 
extension to be enforced during the presence of munitions laden vessels 
and/or military onload/offload activities. Prior to January 24, 2005, 
the Coast Guard would address this lack of a conditional boundary by 
publishing a temporary security zone of sufficient size in the area for 
each operation at MOTCO (see e.g., 68 FR 33382).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``restricted area'' is defined in Sec.  334.2 as a defined 
water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access 
to the area that generally provides security for Government property 
and/or protection to the public from the risks of damage or injury 
arising from the Government's use of that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 24, 2005, to address this issue on a more permanent 
basis, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register 
(70 FR 3299) establishing a conditional 500-yard security zone around 
MOTCO's piers to be enforced during military onload/offload operations 
(33 CFR 165.1199). The security zone provides necessary security for 
military operations by providing a standoff distance for blast and 
collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of 
response time for security personnel.
    On July 1, 2015, the Coast Guard published a NPRM (80 FR 48787), 
with proposed changes to clarify responsibilities and authorities for 
enforcement of the security zone. There we stated why we issued the 
NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to 
this security zone. During the comment period that ended on September 
14, 2015, we received 0 comments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to 
establish security zones. This authority is separate from the 
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers authority to provide 
appropriate security in defense of their waterfront facilities and for 
vessels moored thereto in accordance with the restricted area in 33 CFR 
334.1110.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to advance the Coast Guard's 
efforts to thwart potential terrorist activity through security 
measures on U.S. ports and waterways.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    The current regulation at Sec.  165.1199 contains several items 
that are the subject of the revisions in this FR. The revisions to 
Sec.  165.1199 will clarify the regulations in a concise, 
understandable format.
    First, the Coast Guard revises Sec.  165.1199(c) by clarifying the 
Coast Guard's enforcement role during active loading operations, and 
the ability of the COTP to designate other representatives as having 
authority to enforce the security zone. The Coast Guard proposes to 
replace the existing term ``patrol personnel,'' in favor of a more 
appropriate term, ``designated representative,'' which includes 
federal, state and local officials designated by the COTP. This 
revision clarifies that the COTP may designate law enforcement 
officials other than Coast Guard personnel to patrol and enforce the 
security zone.
    The Coast Guard also revises the security zone so that it is 
enforceable at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present at a 
pier (in addition to during military onload/offload operations). 
Without this revision, the existing security zone is enforceable during 
military onload or offload operations only.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the existing 
provision regarding ``Local Notice to Mariners'' as a means of 
notifying the public that the security zone will be enforced. The 
security concern related to providing advance notification of the 
presence of an explosive load at a military base outweighs the benefit 
of advance notice of the security zone. Instead, the Coast Guard would 
notify the public of security zone enforcement (and suspensions of 
enforcement) via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-
scene during military onloads or offloads. This revision would better 
align the notification method of this security zone with the 
notification method for the existing safety zone in the area (see Sec.  
165.1198).
    No changes in the regulatory text of the rule in the NPRM.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and 
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses 
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. 
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant 
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    Security zone enforcement would be limited in duration, and limited 
to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule 
would restrict access to the waters encompassed by the security zone, 
the effect of this rule would not be significant because the local 
waterway users will be notified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or 
actual notice on-scene during military onloads or offloads. The 
entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, 
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational 
activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of 
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small 
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 
50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business 
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, 
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational 
activities and sightseeing. The security zone would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for the following reasons. The security zone would be activated, and 
thus subject to patrol and enforcement, for a limited duration. When 
the security zone is activated, vessel traffic would be directed to 
pass safety around the security zone. The maritime public would be 
advised when transiting near the activated zone.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small 
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your 
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have 
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

[[Page 37516]]

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal 
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory 
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory 
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and 
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to 
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR 
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small 
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or 
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have 
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism 
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because 
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has 
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for 
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in 
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that 
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This 
rule involves a security zone of limited size and duration. This rule 
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of 
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis 
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion 
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under 
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the 
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. 
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that 
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or 
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 
0170.1.


0
2. Revise Sec.  165.1199 to read as follows:


Sec.  165.1199  Security Zones; Military Ocean Terminal Concord 
(MOTCO), Concord, California.

    (a) Location. The security zone(s) reside(s) within the navigable 
waters of Suisun Bay, California, extending from the surface to the sea 
floor, within 500 yards of the three Military Ocean Terminal Concord 
(MOTCO) piers in Concord, California.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated 
representative'' means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty 
officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has 
been designated by the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to act 
on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard 
vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a Federal, state, or local law 
enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The security zone(s) described in paragraph 
(a) of this section will be in force during active military onloading 
and/or offloading operations and at any time a vessel loaded with 
munitions is present at a pier.
    (2) When one or more piers are involved in onload or offload 
operations at the same time, there will be a 500-yard security zone for 
each involved pier.
    (3) Under the general regulations in subpart D of this part, entry 
into, transiting or anchoring within the security zone(s) described in 
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited during times of enforcement 
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the 
security zone(s) during times of enforcement must contact the COTP or a 
designated representative on VHF-16 or through the 24-hour Command 
Center at telephone (415) 399-3547 to obtain permission to do so. 
Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the security 
zone(s) must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a 
designated representative.
    (5) Upon being hailed by the COTP or designated representative by 
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel 
approaching the security zone(s) must proceed as directed to avoid 
entering the security zone(s).
    (d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security 
zone(s). During periods that one or more security zones are enforced, 
the COTP or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice 
to Mariners and/or notify mariners via actual notice on-scene. In 
addition, COTP maintains a telephone line that is maintained 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week. The public can contact COTP at (415) 399-3547 to 
obtain information concerning enforcement of this section. When the

[[Page 37517]]

security zones are no longer needed, the COTP or designated 
representative will cease enforcement of the security zones. Upon 
suspension of enforcement, all persons and vessels are granted general 
permissions to enter, move within, and exit the security zones, but 
should remain cognizant of the applicable restricted area designated in 
33 CFR 334.1110.

    Dated: May 20, 2016.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2016-13781 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P